Who will you be voting for in the upcoming 08' election?Poll ended at Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:34 pm

Barack Obama

43%

[ 3 ]

John McCain

43%

[ 3 ]

Other

14%

[ 1 ]

Total votes : 7

Author

Message

Broomie

Post subject: McCain or Obama

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:34 pm

The Enigma

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:00 amPosts: 2601Location: UK

I thought a nice, sensible, non QFG related poll should be necessary right now. America is less than one month away from making a huge choice and let's hope they make the right choice (Obama) so just to see what side our fellow forum members swing to, who will you be voting for in this upcoming election?

If I was American, it would be Barack Obama hands down. It really should be a simple choice but how people still favour him is beyond me, especially with that ditz of a running-mate, Sarah Palin who seems to be tagging a long for the ride rather than taking it seriously. All I've heard from in the McCain campaign is how America shouldn't elect Obama as president, but I've yet to hear what exactly they'd bring to the table other than an older, less informed and god forbid less educated George Bush. The only thing that worries me is how George Bush got into power twice and seeing how John McCain pretty much follows the same agenda it's really worrying to see this man in power when it's happened before. He has no clue about the economy, finished dead close to bottom of his class of 500 students and picked someone like Sarah Palin who seems even worse than he is. How somebody can believe dinosaurs were on this Earth 4,000 years ago is beyond me. Bottom line is, his campaign is a joke and all it stands for is attacking Obama in the smallest of instances. McCain is only fighting to become president, but not to be a president. It seems like some kind of award than a position.

Obama, on the other hand has strength, understanding of not only the economy but the people. He's well educated, well spoken (most of the time he writes his own speeches) and a much, MUCH better understanding of the role of president. If anyone has a chance of saving America, especially in this crisis it's him. McCain on the other hand is at risk or making things worse. Barack Obama has the characteristics of a leader, he answers questions directly and has the respect for the American people and the world too. I've followed his campaign closely, mainly because American politics are far more interesting than British politics. Even our Prime Minister is backing him which was frowned upon over here but it just goes to show how one man can influence millions.

Sure, this poll may seem like a tool of propaganda but whenever you're telling people the true facts it isn't necessarily propaganda, well okay it all depends I guess... don't quote me on that. I just hope America makes the right decision and bring Obama to the White House. So, in the meantime let's see what the members of AGDI have to say and who they'll be voting for. Hopefully I've swayed a few people into changing their minds, mainly the people who watch Fox News or who aren't following the election carefully. I would also like to hear your opinions as well whoever you think would make the better president.

And although I may seem a little hypocritical saying this but let's try not to insult other people's opinions on the matter. I know I went on a tirade over John McCain but that's what an opinion is. Everyone has a different opinion and I'd like to hear yours!

And just to let you know, other basically means the third party candidates like Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

Bottom line, I don't trust Obama. He promises all this "change" like it's going to be easily pulled out of a hat. All the charisma and brilliant speeches aren't the only thing it takes to get the job done. And I don't think he has the experience needed to lead a nation. That's all we need, someone to kiss ass to the UN and hand all our remaining rights as a sovereign nation over to them. I'm not saying we need to try and stand apart from the rest of the world, but we don't have to please everyone either (as it's impossible to anyway).

My generation got tricked into "Rock the Vote" and voting Clinton with promises of a better future. Looks like the Democratic party is trying to play that card again with today's young voters, making them believe it's a waste of time to vote anything but Democrat (there are other parties out there besides them and Republican). Sure, things were decent enough in the 90s, but the economy was floating higher and higher on the backs of everyone's personal debt. We were encouraged to "buy now, pay later". Guess what? It's later now and no one can afford all the delayed payments that are all coming due. Sure, the current administration didn't do anything to fix the problem, but you can't just ignore past leaders' mistakes because of current ones. And believe me, Clinton's decisions in his personal life *did* reflect the character of his professional life, as you can not truly separate the two.

But yeah, brining it back to Obama, there's something about the guy I don't trust. Nothing blatantly obvious, but I sense something wrong under the surface. It just doesn't feel right for me to vote for him. And, I'm not a big McCain supporter either, but I don't think he and Palin are as big of idiots that popular slander is making them seem. I'd rather vote an independent or third party, but none of them have stepped up enough to be a true challenger, thanks to the Dem and Rep bipartisan duopoly working together to shut the others out of debates and such. So, a vote for them is effectively one less vote for Obama's main competition, and it looks like I may have to vote McCain

Yeah, parts of the above may sound stupid, but I'm tired and need sleep.

I'm not saying we need to try and stand apart from the rest of the world, but we don't have to please everyone either (as it's impossible to anyway).

Really... has the US been helping anyone? From what I've seen the US has only been taking and invading for a number of decades.

The US has been trying to control the UN for years now, and succeeding in a manner, so I really don't see your point.They haven't given a thing they haven't received something back from with major interest. (If not financially, in other ways)

Yeah, I'm not part of the extremist groups that we hear about everyday, but like everyone outside the US, I really don't fall for the crap we are fed. The US is heading for a fall, and I can just say it is well deserved.

Hey Brooms...shouldn't the title be McCain or Obama or was that on purpose? It's not exactly easy to encourage objective discussion with such a blatant title, no?

Since I'm not an American, I won't be voting. Being a dutchy, even Obama would probably be too much to the right if he ran in my country, but Dems are still less far away from the general political spectrum in the Netherlands than Reps are.

I wouldn't expect a major economical change from any party. I've recently read that the government can only affect a small part of the economy anyway, so there's no quickie-fix for whatever party you'd pick to apply.

While personal experience of the president is important, I don't think it's the be-all and end-all since a lot of decisions are also made by the various secretaries and voters don't get to decide on those. McCain may be more experienced, but his VP in turn is less experienced than Obama, while Obama's VP has a lot of experience in the senate. In the end, it's probably more important which party's vision you relate to better than which potential president you like better...and I can only echo the fact that Americans only being able to choose between the two political parties that duopolised the political arena is kinda lame, but that's the free market principle for ya.

and I can only echo the fact that Americans only being able to choose between the two political parties that duopolised the political arena is kinda lame, but that's the free market principle for ya.

We have the same in Spain, even though we use a different voting system (D'Hont), that is mathematically equivalent to the American (Jefferson's). I learned about them when I was twelve, and it seemed incredibly stupid back then. Basically, it's flawed in that two political parties would get more representation if they merge than by simply adding their respective representation (as long as they don't lose votes that way). This naturally tends to create two big, opposite parties full of people with which you don't agree, but that for their voters don't look as bad as the people on the other party, with some small parties orbiting around that are mostly ignored, as merging with them would be detrimental.

It's an awful system, and in Spain is even badly implemented, with one party having 10 times as much representation as other with the same number of votes.

Yeah, like I said, not everything I typed above was going to come out the right way due to my sleepiness, and now even I don't know what I was trying to say with some of those points, heh.

And, we don't really control the UN as much as just host it, just like Belgium does not solely control the EU. The UN Security Council effectively controls the UN, of which the US is one of the five permanent members, yes. But, there are always at least one or two opposing members keeping the US and each other in check by vetoing any resolutions that do not benefit themselves. And, if the US did control the UN, we could have easily gotten them to back our ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Also, I do not see why everyone over here must suffer for mistakes made by officials not directly under popular control (and that kind of micromanaging democracy is much closer to anarchy than one might think). It's not like we have that many choices to choose from either lately, again with the two main parties pigeon-holing everyone into "conservative" or "liberal". Anyway, why does the US have to "fall" for any other country to get a chance at being a Great Power? China, India, and the EU have been doing a good job at that lately each in their own way. So what if the US is no longer the "sole Superpower", as the world seemed more stable when there was more than one anyway. At least we knew what direction the nukes were pointed from then and (probably) that no one was insane enough to actually use them.

And, I'm rambling again and probably just ticking other people off... I kind of just want to delete this post and not worry about offending anyone... ugh, political discussions

No wonder the bureaucrats can never get anything substantial accomplished.

everything I've heard from Mccain has been scary so far and Palin is just completely ridiculous. I wish I were American simply to vote against him. I'd be worth the stigmata that goes along. I've actually read a surprising amount of articles about American's planning to flee to Canada if there's a McCain victory but then again there were just as many for Bush's re-election and no one really came over. To me Barrak seems more realistic where as McCain seems to be to far to the left for anyone to handle or even take seriously. Also look at McCain's health history, the guy's had skin cancer more than twice and when giving his physical papers to run for office it was over one thousand pages compared to the one doctors note Obama had for a clean bill of health. Realistically a vote for McCain is almost voting Palin for President which would only make America more of a joke than it's already becoming.

_________________Calik Status: Hero of Speilburg Has become the Prince of Shapier and a Hero among Tarnans, after freeing the Mordavians from eternal fear he was zapped to the land of Silmaria where an import bug has him trapped between worlds.4/5

Obama, on the other hand has strength, understanding of not only the economy but the people. He's well educated, well spoken (most of the time he writes his own speeches) and a much, MUCH better understanding of the role of president.

People must be mindful that their vote for a political candidate should be based on their suitability to hold down the position, not on how articulate they are with words or how charismatic they can be. Remember, the very job of a politician is to convince the public that he's the right choice for their country. A politician who possesses the gift of the gab has a good advantage because he knows that he can appear sympathetic and tell people exactly what they want to hear. But that still doesn't mean he's not full of hot air! Political candidates are not being judged on how good a celebrity they'd make. A politician with no prior experience, yet possessing the ability to captivate such a large audience and sway their votes based on charisma alone, is merely a showman. Grandstanding does not demonstrate that he has any real substance nor an effective plan in place. Is this really the kind of person who should be commanding such power and running an entire country? The media plays a huge part, too, in bolstering the public image of certain candidates which can make huge numbers of people flock to their bandwagon merely because everyone else seems to be doing it, without looking any deeper into both sides of the story.

For the record, Barak Obama has a somewhat shady (and less publicized) history too, and in the interests of a balanced poll, I think that this article outlines some of the potential pitfalls of voting in a leader based solely on their charisma (or negative media portrayal of the opposition), rather than on their experience, which is the most important factor. Always, vote with your head, not your heart...

Whow, albeit a different perspective is often refreshing, this writer (Ali Sina) is taking a rather extreme position. AGDI2, I agree with your own words, but did you read the whole article? Some of these thoughts are interesting, but the article ends up in a very insulting and, in my opinion, rather simplistic view. The clear comparison with a.o Hitler (Godwin's law) is, to put it mildly, not the optimal vehicle to start a valuable debate.

Yeah, I did read the entire thing. I don't think the intention is to liken Obama to Hitler, but rather to illustrate the disastrous chain of events that can potentially unravel when citizens vote in a leader due to their smooth-talking ways, instead of their policies or prior experience. Voting for "change", for the sake of change, but not bothering to investigate whether Obama's proposed change will actually turn out for better or worse.

While the article does portray an unlikely "worst case scenario" conclusion, I don't think the basis of the argument is entirely unreasonable. History has proven multiple times what can happen when a leader with severe narcissistic tendencies comes to power by democratic process, and while Obama may not exactly become the next Hitler if elected president, at the core of the issue, the question still remains: how will he run a country based on charisma and very little else?

The results of this election will affect the entire world, not just the US, which is why I think so many foreigners are taking such a vested interest in it. Voting is always a matter of trying to choose between the better of two evils, as all politicians will lie and end up doing a 180 on their policies at some point. So, the best thing is to ignore all the flashy vernacular and base the decision on experience and things based in reality. Would you prefer a pilot who has never flown a plane before yet boasts that he's the best pilot in the world? Or would you prefer a pilot who has flown over 2000 flights, yet doesn't need to try and boast to elevate his status to compensate for inexperience? Obama comes off so over-confident that anyone would think he's an NBA star! He'd make a great celebrity personality, but does that criteria qualify him to be leader of the world's largest super power?

I voted for Obama and I'm proud of it. Because I don't want another George W. Bush Clone for another 4 years which McCain is even though he tried to be different than Bush but failed miserably. I dont want gas prices to be 4 bucks a gallon again. and Palin is just like Bush very stupid and doesn't even know what is going on. I doubt that the Republican party would allow her to run for President in 2012. Also Im glad Obama won enough of of those greedy jerks getting money that they don't even deserve. and Enough with the two wars that we are in. I dont think Obama will become the next Hitler. You cant even compare the two. Also Bush all ready similar to Hitler.

But Obama hasn't done anything yet. Not a single thing. In the lead-up to being elected, he's done little more than deliver the same tired old promises of change, yet he offers no tangible solutions. The ability to 'say' and the ability to actually 'do' are totally different things. And I think it's kinda scary to see how the media and celebrities can whip so many people into such a frenzy - crying and dancing because Obama won when he hasn't even proven himself capable of anything other than being Anthony Robbins black doppleganger. Why are people celebrating and rejoicing because he's the first 'black' president? How on earth does his color have anything to do with the fact that he's going to be a good leader? Isn't that almost reverse-racism? It's scary that so many people can lose sight of the larger picture and be sucked in by eloquence.

In light of the financial crisis, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Islamic terrorism and expnasion is still the biggest threat to humanity today. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush's popularity was at an all-time high, indicating that people approved of his initial actions. His popularity gradually sunk to an all time low, not because he started doing anything different, but because he tried to stay the course which made people ansy. Wars are as old as mankind itself. They're not going to go away. There have always been wars and there have always been people protesting them. And there will always be wars as long as religion, money, and politics exist. Regardless which leader is elected, that's never going to change.

What's important, then, is to elect a leader who understands the extent of the threat the world is up against, and Obama clearly does not. He's never even served in the military before. It's sheer arrogance/nativity on Obama's part to claim that he's the savior who can diplomatically negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President or Iran or other extremist leaders. Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" not long ago so it's quite clear what his ultimate motives are. Now, how is Obama going to 'diplomatically' make Iran discontinue their nuclear program and mining for uranium to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent Ahmadinejad from fulfilling these wishes? Obama already underestimates the savagery of the threat he's up against if he thinks 'easing up' on extremists is the answer. It does not matter whether foreign troops are in these Muslim countries or not. Muslim extremists will continue to wage jihad on the West, even if every last foreign soldier is pulled from Afghanistan and Iraq, because they believe it's their purpose and duty to Islam. This has been going on for thousands of years, before the US even existed as a country, so don't beleive for a second that the president appeasing extremist leaders will do a thing to change their minds or stop terror attacks on the West. Global expansion and domination is the goal they strive for, and no action that any Western president takes will ever override that.

Obama's faltering on this very serious issue seems like a repeat of Bill Clinton's inaction which paved the way for 9/11 to unfold in the first place in the 90's. And as unpopular as he is, to his credit Bush has successfully prevented further terrorist attacks for occurring on American soil since 9/11, and also kept extremists largely at bay. A lot of good has also been done in Iraq. My sister ex-boyfriend served there and said that the media only report the over-sensationalized things like the deaths, but they do a huge disservice by not reporting much about the huge progress that has been made. And now Obama wants to pull out of an unfinished job, leaving an unprepared government and untrained Iraqi police force to fend for themselves. If that happens, extremists will swoop on the country and it will quickly revert back to the way it was before. What a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars that would be. The US initiated the invasion, and regardless of whether it was right or wrong, the responsibility is now on them to make sure Iraq is stable before withdrawing.

But I suspect Obama will do a backflip on his policies regarding these issues at some point, as his stance seemed to be an attempt to capitalize on the unpopularity of the war and win him votes. He's more or less just saying what people want to hear, but doesn't really have a clue on how he'll proceed. Once he realizes that extremists like Ahmadinejad mean business, and are NOT going to give up their nuclear ambitions just because Obama asks nicely, perhaps there will be less pussyfooting around the issue, and he'll start to take a more hard-line approach -- potentially making him just as unpopular as Bush in the long-run.

Having said that, I'd say that I've personally been apolitical about all this entire election. The Republicans policies are based too heavily upon religious persuasion for my liking, while the Democrat's policies seem to be based entirely on hype and nonsense without much merit behind them. Therefore, I think the single most important factor comes down to who can best deal with the biggest threat known to humanity today. I really do hope Obama has what it takes; the electoral process might have been a fun game for him, but what awaits him now is anything but a game.

Uff. There's a good reason political discussions should not be allowed in a gaming community. Or elsewhere.

I don't want to start a war here (enough wars in the real world already) but I can not remain silent.

AGC2, I usually admire your opinions and the way you express yourself. You are obviously an intelligent person, with strong opinions. But I feel your arguments are full of mistakes or at least, based on some propagand ideas not entirely truth. While we don't have to agree, let me point a few things:

Quote:

But Obama hasn't done anything yet. Not a single thing. In the lead-up to being elected, he's done little more than deliver the same tired old promises of change, yet he offers no tangible solutions. The ability to 'say' and the ability to actually 'do' are totally different things. And I think it's kinda scary to see how the media and celebrities can whip so many people into such a frenzy - crying and dancing because Obama won when he hasn't even proven himself capable of anything other than being Anthony Robbins black doppleganger.

He hasn't done anything, that's right, we can only hope, now that he won, he will do something. How could he do something before having the tools to do it? At least he hasn't done anything yet, unlike the Republicans who have done a lot of damage already.

Quote:

Islamic terrorism and expnasion is still the biggest threat to humanity today

Really? More innocent people have died in Irak as a direct result of the US invasion than in all the terrorist attacks in all the world combined. It's easy to say they were "Al-Qaeda terrorists" after they are dead, but among the dead there have been women, children, farmers, old men, etc., all dead in bombings, attacks and terrorist-related conflicts. More than 1 million people have died in Irak after the invasion. Not even under Sadam Hussein (who was one mean son of a b*) there were so many dead.

On the other hand, I'd say hunger, lack of sanitation or many other problems are really the "biggest threat to humanity". Thousands of people die of malaria or hunger each year, specially in Africa. How many died from islamic terrorism?

Quote:

There have always been wars and there have always been people protesting them. And there will always be wars as long as religion, money, and politics exist. Regardless which leader is elected, that's never going to change.

This part, sadly, I agree.

Quote:

Now, how is Obama going to 'diplomatically' make Iran discontinue their nuclear program and mining for uranium to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent Ahmadinejad from fulfilling these wishes? Obama already underestimates the savagery of the threat he's up against if he thinks 'easing up' on extremists is the answer.

So, just to get this straight, even if Ahmadinejad was the beast some people (and news) think it is, are you saying that looking for a diplomatic solution is stupid, and the correct solution would be to make war on Iran, kill thousands of iranian innocent people (since that's inevitable in any war), and then proceed to the next "country who threatens West"? That would mean bombing at least Cuba, North Korea and Syria, according to the US "friend or foe" map of the world. Mmh, sounds like millions of dead people to me. No, I think I'll stick with the stupid solution of trying to find a diplomatic way out of this.

Quote:

Muslim extremists will continue to wage jihad on the West, even if every last foreign soldier is pulled from Afghanistan and Iraq, because they believe it's their purpose and duty to Islam. This has been going on for thousands of years, before the US even existed as a country, so don't beleive for a second that the president appeasing extremist leaders will do a thing to change their minds or stop terror attacks on the West. Global expansion and domination is the goal they strive for, and no action that any Western president takes will ever override that.

Really? Sounds more like the description of west imperialism than that of muslim terrorists. If you are talking about religious wars, then yes, it's been going for thousands of years, but not only on the part of islam, let's not forget the Crusaders and their holy mision of taking the word of the Lord to the "barbarians". But if you are talking about terrorism, it's really something that started in the XX century, as a response to some nationalist non-religious movements who some religious leaders found threatening (Armenia and Turkey come to mind, and of course, the creation of Israel.) Needless to say, in most interpretations of the Quran, violence is frowned upon, and the term yihad is used as a "holy war that must be started when Islam is attacked". Of course, there are harder interpretations and that's where terrorists appear, but this is only a small fraction of muslims, and many other Islam leaders have pronounced against this hard, belicous interpretation of the Quran. Most of these interpretations come from Saudi Arab, by the way, a country who never gets mentioned by the US since it's one of his most important oil-related partners. OK, in short, all I'm saying is: let's not confuse Islam with terrorism, most of islamic people are the kindest persons in the world.

Quote:

A lot of good has also been done in Iraq.

Tell that to iraqis themselves! Sure you can have a wonderful time in Iraq if you stay in the so called "Green Area". Try stepping outside of it to see how much good has been done to the country.

Quote:

extremists will swoop on the country and it will quickly revert back to the way it was before

Before the US and UK bombed the country to tears all through the 90's people actually had running water and electricity in their houses, which is more than can be say of today's conditions. Under Saddam life was tough and cruel, that's for sure, but today is simply hell. Can you really say iraqis are in better condition today?

Quote:

The US initiated the invasion, and regardless of whether it was right or wrong, the responsibility is now on them to make sure Iraq is stable before withdrawing

This I also kind of agree with, although is very difficult that the US manages to make Iraq stable, seeing that part of the unstability comes from the mere US presence. It's called resistance.

As I said, I'm not trying to start a war here, I'm just trying to clarify some points which I consider to be innacurate. But that's it, I won't go further because political and religious discussions usually go nowhere and end very bad.

About the original question, I prefer Obama not because I think he will really change everything just like that (it's never, ever, that easy) but because I think that the Bush years have been the worst american years in its recent history (in foreign affairs and economy, at least) and I think no one save the Republicans could do it worse. That's it.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with such conversations, as long as they don't resort into personal slander.

Quote:

He hasn't done anything, that's right, we can only hope, now that he won, he will do something. How could he do something before having the tools to do it? At least he hasn't done anything yet, unlike the Republicans who have done a lot of damage already.

That's precisely what I'm getting at. He hasn't done anything yet, and yet there's already so much rejoicing that Obama is already the next savior of America. Only time will tell how good a president Obama will make, not his race or anything else. But since his campaign was based mainly on rhetoric, if you brush all the hype aside, what other noteworthy leadership qualities does he possess that we know of? None yet.

Quote:

Really? More innocent people have died in Irak as a direct result of the US invasion than in all the terrorist attacks in all the world combined. It's easy to say they were "Al-Qaeda terrorists" after they are dead, but among the dead there have been women, children, farmers, old men, etc., all dead in bombings, attacks and terrorist-related conflicts. More than 1 million people have died in Irak after the invasion. Not even under Sadam Hussein (who was one mean son of a b*) there were so many dead.

Of course collateral damage is unavoidable in any war. But the big difference here is that the US troops and coalition forces try their best to minimize and avoid casualties. Whereas, Al Queda and extremists routinely pull aside women, kids, and the elderly as human shields to protect themselves from gunfire and also to tally up the body count against the coalition. A friend of my sister's ex (a 21 year old kid) serving in Iraq, fired upon and killed, an entire family of women and children in Iraq because some terrorist piece of shit, who was hiding in the back of their vehicle, coerced them to drive through a checkpoint and ignore repeated warnings to stop. It was all over the news here in Australia and they really portrayed this kid to be evil for doing what he did. He was really psychologically messed up over it. Yet, the reality is that this car could have been carrying suicide bombers or explosives and there was no other choice he could have made after the car refused to stop multiple times and the car started speeding towards them. These extremists are completely without remorse or compassion for life. They will do absolutely anything to win, even if that means killing other Muslims in the name of their cause.

Quote:

On the other hand, I'd say hunger, lack of sanitation or many other problems are really the "biggest threat to humanity". Thousands of people die of malaria or hunger each year, specially in Africa. How many died from islamic terrorism?

I'm not attempting to downplay those things, but they are self-contained/isolated to certain parts of the world. Political Islam is by far a bigger threat on a worldwide scale, not only in regards to deaths but also due to the nature of its expansion and its penchant for slowly dissolving the cultural identity of any other country in encroaches upon. This is no secret and while I guess people don't like to talk about it, you only need look at North Africa, parts of Asia, and Western Europe to see the effect it's having. While I don't have exact numbers, this site documents ongoing casualties and deaths committed in the name of Islamic terror on a daily basis and dates back several years. (You need to scroll to the bottom of the page for the list). As you can see, there are quite a lot. But killing in the name of Allah has been going on for centuries, unlike the Iraq war.

Quote:

So, just to get this straight, even if Ahmadinejad was the beast some people (and news) think it is, are you saying that looking for a diplomatic solution is stupid, and the correct solution would be to make war on Iran, kill thousands of iranian innocent people (since that's inevitable in any war), and then proceed to the next "country who threatens West"? That would mean bombing at least Cuba, North Korea and Syria, according to the US "friend or foe" map of the world. Mmh, sounds like millions of dead people to me. No, I think I'll stick with the stupid solution of trying to find a diplomatic way out of this.

Looking for a diplomatic solution is never a bad idea. But negotiating with a leader who is an Islamist to the extent that Ahmadinejad is, is like trying to get blood from a stone. This is a man who permits 16 year-old-rape victims to be stoned to death by a mob shoulting "Allahu Akbar" after being buried waist-deep in dirt with their arms tied -- because the legal assumption by Iranian law is that she must have committed adultery; A man who allows homosexuals to be hung simply for existing in his country. Ahmadinejad has publicly made his intentions for Israel and the rest of the non-Muslim world quite clear. Knowing this, should we simply wait for a man like him to develop nuclear weapons and only try to take action when it's too late? Keep in mind that allowing such a monster to develop nuclear weapons and use them would also result in fatalities in the millions.

Sitting down for diplomatic discussions is all well and good, and if it works, then that's great. But not everything can always be resolved diplomatically. And if not... what happens then? What if Ahmadinejad takes advantage of these diplomatic discussions in order to buy himself time and draw attention away from Iran's nuclear program while possible weapons development continues? Obama will, at some point, have to take political actions that could make him lose his current level of popularity when he's dealing with extremist leaders in matters of conflict. He can't be president and then hide behind a rock, hoping to avoid that confrontation. That's all part of the job description.

Iranians also appear to be unique in the Middle East, in that many of them (particularly the younger generation) when surveyed, said that they would welcome a US invasion to help overthrow their government. From what I have read, a lot of Iranians are still partial to the former Zoroastrian religion and proud of their Persian ancestry, not Islam which they consider was forced upon them.

Quote:

Needless to say, in most interpretations of the Quran, violence is frowned upon, and the term yihad is used as a "holy war that must be started when Islam is attacked". Of course, there are harder interpretations and that's where terrorists appear, but this is only a small fraction of muslims, and many other Islam leaders have pronounced against this hard, belicous interpretation of the Quran.

Quote:

OK, in short, all I'm saying is: let's not confuse Islam with terrorism, most of islamic people are the kindest persons in the world.

The crusades were defensive conflict where Muslims were the aggressors. By the time the Crusades started, Muslims had already conquered over half of the Christian countries. Besides, the Crusaders did not invade any Muslim territory. But either way, I don't support brutality in ANY religion. Just because Christians occasionally do bad things too, this still doesn't address the issue that Islam is, at its core, a political movement fueled by violence and intolerance.

I'd be interested to know where you're getting this information that there are multiple versions of the Quran? Let's call a spade a spade here, shall we? This is the tried and true story that many Muslim apologists will often feed to people who are ignorant about their religion to reiterate to others to try and portray it in a positive light. In truth, you really don't need to be a scholar to pick up any copy of the Quran and find that it is absolutely riddled with violence, abuse, pedophilia, rape, misogyny, and murder. I mean, just open the book and it's right there in front of your eyes! I could rattle off a bunch of verses that verify all of the above, but I won't bother since they're all easy enough to locate online if you're so inclined. The name Islam means "submission" in itself, which is pretty telling. And the Quran has never been 'reformed' like the New Testament of Christianity. There's a reason why Islamic terrorists are committing these acts and it's not because they are misinterpreting Islam; it's because they're following the Quran verbatim as the word of Allah/Mohamed. Heck, the fact that merely talking critically about Islam can get a fatwa on your head is scary enough. Or that doing so can force you into hiding for over a decade like Salman Rushdie, or even get you killed like Theo Van Gogh.

Now, as for 'moderate' Muslims. Yes, thankfully, they are the majority and many of them are very good people. But what kind of religion necessitates such terms as "moderate Muslim" and "Islamophobia"? These words indicate that there is already a distinction between different rifts in this religion! Why is this religion scary enough to some people, that they have to coin a specific phrase to illustrate that very valid phobia? Why does such stigma exist around discussing Islam in the first place, if it's not guilty of the charges leveled against it? Have you ever heard of a "moderate Buddhist" or a "Hinduphobe"? Nope, didn't think so!

However, Islam is not an easy religion to leave. The Quran itself states that apostates must be put to death. Many Muslims are fearful to leave Islam, many others have convinced themselves to interpret the violent parts as an analogy that means something different, while others are just content to non-violently support the cause for global expansion by deceiving people with misinformation about their 'peaceful religion' while simultaneously increasing their numbers in countries by outbreeding the original inhabitants and changing the demographics. Higher numbers mean more power, after all.

Another true story. My brother works as a plumber. He worked every day on a construction site with an apprentice electrician who was a 21-year-old Muslim. He seemed like a totally normal guy who talked to everyone with nothing suspect about him. Then, one day, my brother and his coworkers heard on the news that this Muslim guy had been arrested. He was being observed by police at Kinglake (a place about 35 minutes drive from where I live) in remote forest area. He and a bunch of other extremists had a training camp set up there and this piece of trash was planning to become Australia's first suicide bomber by blowing up the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) and Crown Casino complex. I can't find a good news article on it right now, but you can Google it. Luckily, this asshole was arrested. But that's a little close to home, don't you think? It really makes me wonder about this Islamic expansion and how many Muslims living in the West are capable of being extremists. Rhetorical question: Once Muslims become a large majority of the population, how do you tell apart the extremists from the rest? Is there even a way? This is a cause for concern.

Quote:

Tell that to iraqis themselves! Sure you can have a wonderful time in Iraq if you stay in the so called "Green Area". Try stepping outside of it to see how much good has been done to the country.

Are you speaking from personal experience? Many Iraqis do prefer the state of their country without Saddam, though they'd be unlikely to admit that. They have also improved the infrastructure, roads, highways, etc. there. Though, it's a slanted perspective. Christian Iraqis would obviously prefer the troops to remain. Muslim Iraqis want them out. Unfortunately, I think the mistake with the war is that you cannot force democracy on people who don't want to embrace it. That seems to be the difference between the Iraqis and Iranians.

Quote:

Can you really say iraqis are in better condition today?

Not yet, and with Obama pulling out before the job's finished, they'll be even worse off.

Quote:

This I also kind of agree with, although is very difficult that the US manages to make Iraq stable, seeing that part of the unstability comes from the mere US presence. It's called resistance.

True. And it begs the question, why resist someone who is trying to help your situation? Again, the intolerance preached by Islam is partly to blame here. The Iraqis could make the task easier of rebuilding their country, but Islam has them torn on whether to accept help from the infidels or to kick them out of the Middle East. Most of these Iraqi's are not educated to a high level. They are susceptible to whatever vile trash and propaganda about Israel and the west their Imam spews to them at their mosque. To them, this is the extent of their 'education' on outside affairs. Therefore, the concept that US troops could enter their country to assist (and not invade and loot) is against everything they have been told about Americans. On one side, everything they read in the Quran and are preached to about by their Imam tells them to fight and kill the unbelievers, yet on the other hand, they see a compassionate side too. They do not know who to trust because of the conflicting information they're getting and this tends to make for a bumpy transition.

I would suggest researching more about Islam, not only from Muslims you might know who will, naturally, portray it in a very positive light, but from other unbiased sources too. Read the Quran, talk to ex-Muslims and see why they left Islam in order to get a full perspective. Ignorance about this kind of thing on such a large scale is quite frightening, and it's something that really bothers me, because political Islam/extremism already has its foot well in the door. It's so easy to see all around us if we open our eyes, yet so many people have their heads buried in the sand. Obama believes that because he lived in Indonesia, he will have credibility with Muslim leaders, but Indonesia is a very moderate country as far as Islamic values are concerned and I understand that most Arabs do not consider Asians be a 'true' Muslims anyway. So, good luck to Obama. I think he'll surely need it!

I just meant that he believes that he can accomplish what Bush could not through diplomatic means. But I think he'll have about the same level of success. It's more so Obama's fanbase that treats him as the second coming!

I also wanted to add to my previous post that I'm trying not to generalize all Muslims into one group and claim that they're all identical in their mindset. I understand that many Muslims have no say in their choice of religion and only posses a shallow understanding of what they were raised to follow. It's not Muslims I take issue with, but the ideology of Islam itself.

You have your vision and I have mine. I'll just advice the same you advice to me: research about Islam. I don't know where you get that Islam itself promotes violence. It's like saying christianity itself promotes violence because of the IRA terrorists, or because if you open the Old Testament is full of violence right there, as well as a nefast attitude towards women (check the Levitic).

Quote:

US troops and coalition forces try their best to minimize and avoid casualties

Quote:

why resist someone who is trying to help your situation?

Remember those photographs of Abu Ghraib prison where soldiers were abusing iraqi prisoners? Just because there are no more photos, doesn't mean tortures stopped. While I'm not saying every US soldier is doing the same, it's hard to convince a whole nation that you are "helping them" when that kind of photographs appear, your country is still in full civil war and, as you point it out, your are pretending to impose democracy (or any other political system). Democracy may seem very natural for us, but who are we to dictate how the whole world should be ruled? Based on what?

Quote:

While I don't have exact numbers, this site documents ongoing casualties and deaths committed in the name of Islamic terror on a daily basis and dates back several years. (You need to scroll to the bottom of the page for the list). As you can see, there are quite a lot. But killing in the name of Allah has been going on for centuries, unlike the Iraq war.

I was hoping you were linking to some serious site. A web page that states that dogs should be offended because some terrorist were temporaly put in their pens can not be taken seriously. Or comparing a terrorism strike with a jewish Nobel price, saying: "Look what muslims do in their holidays" is so obviously tendecious that I can just picture the israeli web master.

I'm pretty sure I can find some muslim website that paints a really nice picture of the arab world and then compares it with the "atrocities commited by the jewish demons" but I won't, let keep it objective and try to quote impartial sources.

Quote:

Iranians also appear to be unique in the Middle East, in that many of them (particularly the younger generation) when surveyed, said that they would welcome a US invasion to help overthrow their government. From what I have read, a lot of Iranians are still partial to the former Zoroastrian religion and proud of their Persian ancestry, not Islam which they consider was forced upon them.

AHHH! Wrong, wrong, wrong. C'mon, do you really believe that bullshit? Surveyed by Bush must be, yeah right. I have iranian friends, and while they don't like their president, they would NEVER support an invasion. That's the same lie Bush told about Irak. In the case of Irak, it was partly true, but in the case of Iran, c'mon, I really can not believe anyone falls for it. Iran is a DEMOCRATIC country. Like it or not, hardliner Ahmadinejad was ELECTED by its people. No iranian wants an invasion to overthrown their legitim government. The people probably voted for Ahmadinejad because they felt threatened that they were next on Bush agenda and they thought they needed a strong character to stop an invasion or to fight back, but that's a different discussion. Just please, don't repeat the US lies about Iran.

Quote:

Are you speaking from personal experience?

I've been planning a trip to Middle East for some time now. While I just have been in Morocco, which is the most "occidental" arab country, I have been researching the zone for quite a while. I still hope to make this trip next year, although the economic recession is not helping me in my efforts . When I do, I really hope that nobody kills me for being an infidel , which I seriously doubt. And then, maybe I can share some photos of me in beautiful Iran, if nobody decided to wipe it for the sake of "prevention", that is.

And finally, I know from experience that, while these discussions are interesting from a personal point of view (since we can learn more about each other's way of thinking) there are never satisfactory conclusions and nobody changes their minds because other people tell them so. So while you have all the right to reply, I want to tell now and for all, this is my last statement about the topic, I'm letting it be. I prefer discussing Pizza Elementals anyday.

I agree with your last sentence, Obama will need a lot of luck and inteligence if he really wants to help the Middle East situation. Let's hope for the better (whatever you think the "better" is!)

All I can do is reiterate that the situation is what it is. Sure, the Old Testament is filled with fire and brimstone rubbish too, but at least Christians had the good sense to reform their religion and leave that nonsense in the stone ages where it belongs. Christianity is now a religion of tolerance and understanding (for the most part), unlike Islam which still preaches the violence and hate of the Quran as it was written by a mass murderer prophet over 1400 years ago. Show me a case where a Christian has flown planes into buildings or otherwise committed mass murder and attributed their attack to Jesus Christ or their religion? Nowhere does the Bible talk about persecuting the Jews or that it's okay to kill the infidels and rape their women in the name of God like the Quran does. Muslims are unique, in that they are the only people who kill because their religion instructs them to.

Where do I get that Islam promotes violence? From the Quran itself, of course. The Muslim Holy Book which defines how Muslims should live their lives by following the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed. I don't really need to explain much further when you can simply open the Quran and the book will confirm all that violence and hatred for itself.

Quote:

Remember those photographs of Abu Ghraib prison where soldiers were abusing iraqi prisoners?

Those soldiers faced legal action over that, and the actions were publicly condemned by most American citizens. On the contrary, where was all the Muslim outrage and condemnation for the 9/11 attacks? A very small minority of Muslims spoke out about this, while the large majority remained silent or apathetic. Instead of accepting responsibility for Islam being the instigator of 9/11, Muslim groups like CAIR even went as far to make up outright lies and idiotic conspiracies in order to get the critical public eye away from Islam. Of course, such events are damaging to keeping strong foreign relations, but the key in moving forward is to set the wrongs right and apologize for such mistakes. The US has done that for Abu Ghraib. Have Muslim leaders for 9/11?

Quote:

I was hoping you were linking to some serious site.

The site isn't serious because it puts a humorous twist on illogical stupidity? Any statistics that site reports can be verified by other independent news articles, I'm sure. They wouldn't have much of a case otherwise. But then again, any site I link to could be claimed non-serious simply because it disagrees with the teachings of Islam. But rather than throw websites around, it would be better for you to prove that the Quran does NOT encourage violence, intolerance, and hatred. The Quran is, after all, the book that Muslims live by. If you can prove that the Quran doesn't promote more violence and intolerance than it does acceptance and compassion, then I'll eat my comments.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure I can find some muslim website that paints a really nice picture of the arab world and then compares it with the "atrocities commited by the jewish demons" but I won't, let keep it objective and try to quote impartial sources.

Hey, you don't even have to. The Quran had that base covered long before the Internet age!

Quote:

I agree with your last sentence, Obama will need a lot of luck and inteligence if he really wants to help the Middle East situation. Let's hope for the better (whatever you think the "better" is!)

Muslim leaders are rejoicing his election too, because they think that Obama will change US foreign policy in regards to Israel/Palestinian state. He's in a tough situation because to maintain his popular image both at home and abroad, he's caught in the middle of appeasing extremists and serving his own county's security interests. I don't envy his position at all!

Christianity is now a religion of tolerance and understanding (for the most part), unlike Islam which still preaches the violence and hate of the Quran as it was written by a mass murderer prophet over 1400 years ago. Show me a case where a Christian has flown planes into buildings or otherwise committed mass murder and attributed their attack to Jesus Christ or their religion?

And honestly, most religions have dark sides. You shouldn't compare extremist forms of any faith to the faith as a whole. Islam is typically rather tolerant of the other Abrahamic faiths (they see us as close enough to the final truth of Mohammed).

_________________There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum